Is it though? Terrorism is the use of violence to achieve a political goal by creating fear in a population. The people who are targeting Tesla dealerships aren’t directing their message to the general population, they’re directing it to one Nazi in particular.
Exactly. They aren’t even attempting to scare Tesla customers themselves. It’s all about tarnishing Musk’s image, sending a message, and damaging his cashcow.
Yes that’s by definition domestic terrorism, Elon is part of government and even if he weren’t so long as the fires and such are intended to raise awareness by fear or loss of profit it would still be by definition domestic terrorism.
For reference according to the FBI since 1982:
The FBI defines terrorism, domestic or international, as the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government or civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives.
Yeah the issue is somehow white nationalist mows down a mall = troubled teen, liberal (re: minority because nuance and reality are things they struggle to grasp) attacks on private property resulting in zero death or major injury = domestic terrorism.
Iirc they didn’t even label the assassination attempt as domestic terrorism.
Yes that’s what the other person is saying. It is clearly domestic terrorism but because the left in large part feel it to be a moral action that it isn’t domestic terrorism and that’s just wildly idiotic. Almost to a person terrorists believe themselves to be doing something morally correct while also being intentionally morally abborant.
It’s a very dumb term to use in earnest, just call them what they did and stop trying to make morality a legal question.
I mean, if someone was to burn a dealership down, that would be rather similar. I assumed a certain severity of attack, because that word implies a degree of violence to me. I may be wrong there. I don’t think graffiti could ever be accurately described as an attack, for example.
Maybe I’m missing something if the “attacks” in question are water balloons or whatever. I assumed, possibly incorrectly, that something more severe was implied by that word. Like arson, or similar.
But it is domestic terrorism, it completely fits that definition. I’m not saying I really give a shit, but let’s be clear what’s happening.
Is it though? Terrorism is the use of violence to achieve a political goal by creating fear in a population. The people who are targeting Tesla dealerships aren’t directing their message to the general population, they’re directing it to one Nazi in particular.
Exactly. They aren’t even attempting to scare Tesla customers themselves. It’s all about tarnishing Musk’s image, sending a message, and damaging his cashcow.
Yes that’s by definition domestic terrorism, Elon is part of government and even if he weren’t so long as the fires and such are intended to raise awareness by fear or loss of profit it would still be by definition domestic terrorism.
For reference according to the FBI since 1982:
Yeah the issue is somehow white nationalist mows down a mall = troubled teen, liberal (re: minority because nuance and reality are things they struggle to grasp) attacks on private property resulting in zero death or major injury = domestic terrorism.
Iirc they didn’t even label the assassination attempt as domestic terrorism.
Then there’s clearly a distinct and significant double standard at play here, which is 100% the actual problem.
Yes that’s what the other person is saying. It is clearly domestic terrorism but because the left in large part feel it to be a moral action that it isn’t domestic terrorism and that’s just wildly idiotic. Almost to a person terrorists believe themselves to be doing something morally correct while also being intentionally morally abborant.
It’s a very dumb term to use in earnest, just call them what they did and stop trying to make morality a legal question.
This is basically like that time Jimmy Carter’s peanut fields were torched because of high gasoline prices
I mean, if someone was to burn a dealership down, that would be rather similar. I assumed a certain severity of attack, because that word implies a degree of violence to me. I may be wrong there. I don’t think graffiti could ever be accurately described as an attack, for example.
Rage bait used to be believable
So you disagree with the FBIs definition? Why does your disagreement make it bait?
Maybe I’m missing something if the “attacks” in question are water balloons or whatever. I assumed, possibly incorrectly, that something more severe was implied by that word. Like arson, or similar.